Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama advisers chart the route back

By Greg Sargent

Top Obama advisers have reached some conclusions about the Dem shellacking and about what they need to do to restore the "early promise of the Obama presidency":

The advisers are deeply concerned about winning back political independents, who supported Obama two years ago by an eight-point margin but backed Republicans for the House this year by 19 points. To do so, they think he must forge partnerships with Republicans on key issues and make noticeable progress on his oft-repeated campaign pledge to change the ways of Washington.

Even more important, senior administration officials said, Obama will need to oversee tangible improvements in the economy. They cannot just keep arguing, as Democrats did during the recent campaign, that things would have been worse if not for administration policies...

Over the next few days, White House officials said they will begin to gauge whether they can forge an alliance with any top Republicans, many of whom are scheduled to attend a bipartisan meeting at the White House on Thursday. Although Obama could benefit from a high-profile compromise -- perhaps on extending the Bush-era tax cuts or on other tax initiatives set to expire before the end of the year -- officials are also prepared to point out any Republican intransigence.

Sure, partnerships with Republicans on key issues would be nice, but is this really any different from the strategy the White House pursued for much of the past two years? Remember the months-long quest to find GOP senators to support health care reform and the subsequent show of bipartisan outreach at the big health care summit the President presided over? Many Democrats confidently predicted these efforts would give the President the moral high ground and allow him to cast Republicans as intransigent. The public bought the Dem argument that the GOP wasn't interested in good-faith compromise -- but returned Republicans to power, anyway.

My guess is that insiders are, understandably, mainly leaking along these lines to project a sense that they "get the message" of the elections, and that we'll ultimately see a different and more sophisticated comeback strategy play out. Also: Note that officials seem to recognize above that overseeing tangible improvements in the economy will do more to brighten Obama/Dem prospects than any high-profile displays of "compromise" will. That's good.

By Greg Sargent  | November 14, 2010; 8:53 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, 2012, Health reform, Independents, economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

Obama lost all those independent voters not for lack of compromise with Republicans whom no one but the "values voters" base admires. It was for failing to change the ways of Washington (viz. the 18 month health care debate, the give aways to all done to get it passsed), for being indistinguishable from Bush Cheney in terms of monetary, banking, foreign and international trade policy.

People figure, both sides are corrupt, both lie to protect their own, so we'll keep changing these people out until they get the message. The early promise of the Obama Presidency was not business as usual. So what are the Obama advisors deciding they need to do? Business as usual, of course.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 14, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Here is an example remarkable for two things. One, the New York Times is speaking positively of the Tea Party, just barely, but seriously.

Second, notice how committed Obama is to Free Trade, business as usual. This is true, "You would need a high-powered microscope to tell the difference between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush on the subject of trade. Even during this slow economic recovery, Mr. Obama is pushing for a new market-opening round of talks at the World Trade Organization."


Posted by: shrink2 | November 14, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/13/opinion/13lighthizer.html?_r=1&hp

Posted by: shrink2 | November 14, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Yesterday, I quoted from Hofstadter's essay The Paranoid Style of American Politics, written nearly a half century ago, to help provide some historical perspective on what Limbaugh and Beck are pushing and what the Tea Party types have been, unknowingly, bequeathed...

"The modern right wing ... feels dispossessed: America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion. The old American virtues have already been eaten away by cosmopolitans and intellectuals; the old competitive capitalism has been gradually undermined by socialistic and communistic schemers; the old national security and independence have been destroyed by treasonous plots, having as their most powerful agents not merely outsiders and foreigners as of old but major statesmen who are at the very centers of American power." (essay available on line)

This morning, Yglesias notes a post by the New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg which includes a pretty stunning political cartoon from 100 years before Hofstadter! Take a close look. And if you don't find it stunning, I'd say you're stunned.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2010/11/19th-century-fox-news.html

Matt says...

"Hendrick Hertzberg pulls out an anti-Lincoln cartoon from the 1862 midterms at which the Republicans got a bit of a shellacking...

I think the evident similarities between aspects of political rhetoric today and 150 years ago highlights the extent to which the values-and-temperament debate between conservative nationalism and progressive cosmopolitanism is ultimately much more fundamental than the passing controversies over tax rates economic regulation. The basic anxieties provoked by threats to existing status hierarchies haven’t changed, nor have the rhetorical tools of countermobilization."
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/11/la-plus-ca-change/

Likely, before I've had my breakfast and showered, some knuckle dragging mouth-breather is going to come along and say, "See, there's nothing new here. There was all that stuff, the sort of rough and tumble political commentary Rush and Glenn engage in when they're not biting the heads off of live canaries while downloading porn, and we (the US of A) is still here. No problem." Yeah, and the Jews are still here too but it probably doesn't follow that the the white supremacists and the classic anti-Semitic jeremiad Beck and Murdoch just spewed out into the culture is without consequence.

Not to mention that this cartoon arrived during the first civil war.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 14, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Come into my parlor, said the spider to the fly.

The corruption of new Republican/libertarian/tea party reps continues apace...

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/13/freedomworks-retreat/

Posted by: bernielatham | November 14, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

So, Obama's team wants to play softball, while the other team continues playing hardball? Game already over.

Posted by: dozas | November 14, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Greg writes:

My guess is that insiders are, understandably, mainly leaking along these lines to project a sense that they "get the message"

__________________________________


Why don't you just come out and say you think they are lying?


Because when they come back in a month, and have a totally different story, it is difficult to have a discussion when the first thing is sorting out what was a bunch of deceptions then and now.
.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

I will say this again. Bush lowered the top rate from 36% to 35%.

There was a Clinton "Temporary Surcharge" of 10% which was on the top rate as well - that put the rate at 39.6%.

Reagan's rate was 31%.


There is no reason a compromise can not be had at 36%.

That was the rate without the Surcharge. Obama is basically saying that he wants to bring back the TEMPORARY surcharge and make it permanent. Pretty simple.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

As many of you might know, I like to analyze the effectiveness of messages - and some of this stuff can be pretty effective.

I really don't like one side or the other making too many mistakes - if in a football game, one side fumbles 3 times it really destroys the game.

________________________________


Let's take a look at the this debate over the "Bush tax cuts"

This is turning out to be a really, really stupid debate for the democrats to have.

First - it is REMINDING people that Bush cut taxes.

For a group of people, who spent years trying to demonize Bush, and trying to convince people how horrible he was (instead of just debating the policy differences) this is a remarkable mistake.


The Obama people - by bringing up the "Bush tax cuts" over and over again over a period of months, are actually TELLING people that Bush CUT their taxes. The Obama people are reminding people that Bush gave the Middle Class a tax cut - and almost everyone who pays income taxes got a cut.

Then the Obama people are doing the obvious mistake of a "class warfare" idea out there.

But - bringing back Bush - and actually saying "Bush tax cuts" highlights Bush's domestic policy in a good light.

It's not really a good idea from Obama's point of view, is it?

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

The liberals are going to have to come to terms with the "bipartisanship" plank of Obama's - and how it has really become a TRAP which Obama set for himself.


It appears that Obama has an inability to think ahead - and this is a recurring problem with Obama.


For the past three years Obama has portrayed himself as the guy who would bring about "bipartisanship." I think most reasonable and thoughtful people ending up thinking to themselves "He better deliver."


The reason is now becoming clear: If the democrats are going to jump up and down like every "bipartisan" deal is a victory for them, what use is it for the Republicans to cooperate ???


The democrats have sabotaged the process before it has begun. It is sad, really sad commentary too.

For Obama, this may prove to be the self-inflicted wound that is slowly bleeding his career to a final death.


A Compromise MUST be portrayed as a victory for BOTH SIDES.

Every politician knows that. Everyone who has been around the block knows that.

One can not get cooperation from the other side if Obama's people are going to immediately start characterizing it as a defeat for the other side.


Such is the nature of compromise and bipartisanship. Obama has been sabotaging the whole thing.


I don't buy any of the story that Obama reached out to the Republicans - all I saw was a few meetings - one in which Obama ran to the press and started to criticize the Republicans before they were even out the driveway of the White House.

That does not build trust - in fact it actually destroys the next round because no one trusts Obama.


Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

The cited cartoonist of RickGurleyTinaBrown Hertzberg's offering:

Adalbert J. Volck (1828–1912) was a dentist, political cartoonist, and caricaturist born in Bavaria.[1] He was known for supporting the Confederacy during the American Civil War, doing so through his political cartoons, smuggling items for the Confederate army, and personally assisting President Jefferson Davis by acting as a courier.
[wiki]

Bernie, one must avoid confusing the scope of American history with "All My Children."
Although Erika Kane would be a literal Henry Steele Commager compared to Yglesias.

Regards,

Knuckledragging-nasalstrip tao

Posted by: tao9 | November 14, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

@OF: Same tripe different day. When clinton era tax rates (still too low) were in place we ran surpluses. During the Reagan, bush, and bushII disasters we ran huge deficits. Clearly OF has no interest in fiscal sanity. Best to ignore him..

Posted by: srw3 | November 14, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Obama whom no one but the base admires lost all those independent voters for lack of compromise with Republicans, for failing to change the ways of Washington, for being indistinguishable from Bush Cheney in terms of monetary, banking, foreign and international trade policy.

...corrupt, lie to protect their own...The early promise of the Obama Presidency was not business as usual. So what are the Obama advisors deciding they need to do? Business as usual, of course.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 14, 2010 10:07 AM
-------

Fixed it for you. Now it makes sense.

Posted by: Brigade | November 14, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

"Best to ignore him.."

Yes, please do. I think nearly everyone has him and all his other ID's safely in the Troll Hunter.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 14, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Compromise

Look folks, Obama is the one who went around the country for the past three years telling people he could and WOULD do the heavy-lifting to bring about compromise.

Sorry, but few people in the country see much of an effort from Obama on that one.

Sure, the liberals, talk about a few meetings and a bogus summit. But Obama wasn't even TRYING to compromise at that summit. It was a pathetic one-sided lecture from Obama. Disappointing.

The idea that the liberals like to characterize these little tiny gestures on Obama's part as anywhere near the EFFORT which Obama committed himself to - that gets people angry. And it shuts down the conversation right there.

If someone came to a business, and promised to do a certain thing - and two years after being hired little EFFORT appeared to have been made, that person would be FIRED.

And that says it all.

Obama deserves to be FIRED. Even Obama's defenders side-step this issue.

And even when one of Obama's defenders tries to say anything on this subject, it comes off as more of a lie than anything else. I have certainly not hear one comment from an Obama defender which has actually helped Obama's cause on this.

Instead, if an Obama defender comes off as lying on this topic, it HURTS Obama.


__________________________


Obama's conduct over the past two years

I think any reasonable person in Obama's position would have at least seen the possibility of losing control of a House of Congress this year.

IN that event, it would have been wise to build a working relationship with the Republicans when Obama had a position of strength.

Obama never did that. Instead, Obama poisoned the atmosphere - with his conduct during reconciliation and during the financial regulation discussions and debates.

NOW Obama is far worse off than if he had actually been working with the Republicans over the past two years.


I call that pretty stupid. I call that incredibly stupid. I call that stupid to a level that Obama really doesn't belong in office.

Clearly, Obama does not have the brains which people claim. Obama has been doing so many stupid things that if it were fiction, the editors would reject the story as not being realistic at all.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

srw3 at 11:57 AM

Obviously, there are many factors which go into whether there is a deficit or not.

And isn't the actual goal Economic Growth?

___________________


One thing we have all learned is the "bubble economies" are not very useful - they are artificial creations which are best avoided.

Let me put it this way : Would it not be wise to SUBTRACT OUT the "bubbles" ???

So, subtract out the internet bubble and the sub-prime mortgage-real estate bubble - and use those economic number to judge the REAL STRENGTH of the economy

-------------------


Your comment is a little rude, and dismissive - especially when your thought is so short-sighting and just silly.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

suekzoo1 at 12:02 PM

These rude comments from you are not very helpful.

You are simply afraid that your point of view can not hold up under reasoned discussions.


At this point, I'm going to ask you to be polite - and try not to show what an ugly person you are.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

is this really any different from the strategy the White House pursued for much of the past two years? Remember the months-long quest to find GOP senators to support health care reform and the subsequent lies about bipartisan outreach by Obama?

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 14, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

OrangeForces, it is not enough that they have devised software to ignore you, but they still have to level personal attacks.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 14, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Wow, 7 comments removed out of 12 visible and 3 of the 12 deal with the troll, 10 troll versus 9 comments and my first three could have been 1, so it is really 10 troll versus 7. How could anyone not use the Troll Hunter?

Brigade, what you did doesn't seem too different to me, just a difference in emphasis. The problem is bilateral business as usual.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 14, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

@cl12: subsequent lies about bipartisan outreach by Obama?

What more could obama do? He compromised on the size and makeup of the stimulus (earning exactly 0 votes in the house, 1 republican senate vote), he proposed basically what republicans proposed earlier and what baker, daschle, and dole outlined. Are they closet socialists? Result 0 republican house votes, 0 senate votes. He compromised on financial reform. Result 0 republican votes in the house, 0 votes in the senate. What hasn't he compromised on?

What compromises have the republicans offered. My way or the highway...

Your statement is just intellectually dishonest, mendacious, and without merit.

Why is it that after the massive landslide in 2008, no one in the republican party said, we have to listen to the voters and work with obama, but in 2010 when the get off my lawn crowd outnumbered younger voters (blessedly, this group shrinks every year) and <40% turnout (so really less than 1/4 of eligible voters went for republicans) wins the house back, all of a sudden dems have to listen to the voters and become republicans. It would be comical if it wasn't so perniciously reinforced by the corporate media and the republican broadcasting network (faux news).

I don't expect brilliance from the rightwingnutistan crowd, but some basic honesty about what happened over the last two years is a prerequisite to having an opinion about what happened. They are entitled to their opinions about what happened, but not their own facts.

Posted by: srw3 | November 14, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

@of:Obviously, there are many factors which go into whether there is a deficit or not.

And isn't the actual goal Economic Growth?

Yes and the bush tax cut debacle and criminal regulatory mismanagement exploded the deficit, crashed the economy and financial sector, produced almost no net economic growth, and created almost 0 net private sector jobs in 8 years. the wages of 95% of workers stagnated while the incomes of the top 5% skyrocketed just like the deficit. Coincidence? Why would extending them do anything but continue the stagnation for the 95%?

Posted by: srw3 | November 14, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse


Fixed it for you. Now it makes sense.
Posted by: Brigade | November 14, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

---

BroadwayJoe is waiting for his royalty check. ;-)

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | November 14, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

I think Greg is right on the optics of this: the WH needs to telegraph its willingness to work with sensible GOPs, so that once it's clear to anyone with a brain that there aren't any, he'll have some high ground to occupy.

In the meantime it's really important for the Dems to get WAY better at messaging so that once they get new initiatives going (and older ones through the system) the GOP can't condemn them before people know what they are.

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 14, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

clawrence12 at 12:21 PM


You are 100% correct.

On top in Greg's piece, we hear the Obama people saying that they will work with the Republicans, but even Greg finds that highly doubtful.


INSTEAD, this blog is a metaphor for the democrats and their attitude: we are now putting you on ignore.


Not sure how "putting the House Republicans on ignore" is going to work, but that this what the liberals want to do : PRETEND THEY DON'T EXIST.


But the actual truth is the House Republicans now represent the American People - so in essence, the democrats are "Putting the American People on ignore."


The democrats continue to PROVE that they really are unfit to govern -

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

srw3 at 12:32 PM writes:

What more could obama do?


________________________


This question signals the beginning of a pile of crap.


You are lying.

YOU know perfectly well that bipartisan compromise means arriving at CENTRIST positions - and you know perfectly well what those compromises would look like in a general sense.


Keep on lying - that is WHY the Independents want to get rid of ALL the democrats


_________________________

Greg's question is now answered by srw

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

BginChi writes:

think Greg is right on the optics of this

____________________________


The American People, and the Indpendents do not want "optics" - they want substance


The substance that Obama said he could deliver, but the "optics" are that Obama never really even tried.


It is getting pathetic - are the democrats this stupid ?

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

srw3 at 12:41 PM

I'm sure that you have read several times that Clinton's policies on subprime mortgages, deregulating derivatives and the Glass Steagall Act DIRECTLY CAUSED this horrible recession.


The Independents which Greg references above know it too.

I believe one think the Obama people learned over the past month is the "blame Bush" line didn't work - MOSTLY because it isn't true.


Terrorism happened - the democrats voted to go into two wars - along with Bush. That affected the economy.


_______________________________


So, your thinking is "Let's compare a wartime economy with Clinton's bubble economy and draw conclusions from there"


It is stupid, deceptive and a pile of crap.


So, I would recommend that you comment on topics other than economics.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

srw3 at 12:32 writes:

Your statement is just intellectually dishonest, mendacious, and without merit.

___________


What a laugh - that is just about the status of everything you have said

_____________________________________
___________________________________


Then, srw3 goes on to say:

I don't expect brilliance from the rightwingnutistan crowd, but some basic honesty about what happened over the last two years is a prerequisite to having an opinion about what happened. They are entitled to their opinions about what happened, but not their own facts.

_______________________________


WOW - exactly what is being asked of you in the comment at 1:16 - which is for the democrats to recongize the role of Clinton's policies in the horrible recession.


Bush was CLEANING UP Clinton's mess in the Middle East - Clinton pulled out our intelligence resources, and never did an adequate job with bin Laden and Saddam

Those were CLINTON'S FAILURES.


Bush had to clean up that mess


NOW, you are complaining that Bush didn't clean up Clinton's economic mess either - this is really laughable.


The TRUTH is the democrats never learned their lesson that Clinton was inexperienced and unqualified in Washington - so what do the democrats do?

They elect someone EVEN MORE unqualified and inexperienced in Obama.


It is unbelievable how stupid the democrats have been

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

If you haven't tried this, you should. It is actually fun to balance the budget. Who knew slaughtering sacred cows was so easy?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?hp

Fixing the trade deficit (the only, repeat the only path to sustainable job growth) is a much more difficult problem. "Free" trade agreements are not the answer, but fair trade regulations are seen as socialist (though not by the Tea Party!), bad for business and so on.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 14, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

INDEPENDENTS

Katrina Van Heuval really spilled the beans on MSNBC a few weeks back - she advanced the basic strategy which is to "fool" the Independents into voting for centrist policies - only as a ruse to get the liberal agenda jammed through.


She EXPOSED the central deception of it all - she explained that the liberals never have any intention of doing anything centrist.


The Independents are onto this - but ONLY after the liberals have LOST all credibility and people don't trust them anymore.


__________________________


The democrats appear to be "yearning for 2008" - when they were able to fool the country into believing they would work to put centrist policies in place.


Instead of learning their lesson, the liberals appear to be trying to figure out how they can get back to fooling people.

That strategy has been proven to be a FAILURE, and yet the liberals are still trying.

That is what is so incredible when watching the democrats.


REMEMBER

This failure to see reality has been what the democrats have been doing since January, when Scott Brown was elected.

Little has changed since January - the result has been a loss of 60 seats in the House.


Are the democrats going to lose another 60 seats - and still be talking the same tune???

______________________


The whole thing is ridiculous - everyone in the nation can see from miles away that the democrats need a complete make-over.


Get Obama to resign, get Nancy off-camera and put in a new leader there - get Harry Reid out of the leadership.


Start from scratch - get rid of the liberal agenda.


It's not that hard. Complete idiots.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

srw3, here are some Obama lies (I'm surprised you've never heard them before):

"The health care bill will not increase the deficit by one dime."

“Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”

"We should not mandate the purchase of health insurance."

"I will close Guantanamo Bay."

All Americans are “surprised, disappointed and angry” about the release of the Lockerbie bomber.

"I will not rest until the BP Oil Spill stops."

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 14, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Shrink2

No, socialist ideas are economically silly - they hamper economic growth and hurt everyone.

_________________________


The Free Trade agreements have to be modified so that our exports equal imports.


Every month, just HALT the unloading of ships, until the exports equal the imports.


Just DEMAND balanced trade -


The South Koreans can either buy beef or whatever else they want - or their goods can sit until the next month.


That is it - No more of other nations closing off their markets for trade advantage - make it clear that the results are what matter.

.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

In terms of the damage done to the United States of America and The World in general...
I rate the consequences of lies this way:

Crimes against humanity: Bush/Cheney
Pernicious: Clinton
Disappointing: Obama

Posted by: shrink2 | November 14, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

OrangeForces, keep in mind that Obama SAID that he got the message from Massachusetts. Obviously not.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 14, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

srw3

Are the democrats willing to take clear responsibility for Clinton's economic policies??


- Clinton's subprime mortgage disaster

- Clinton pumping 2 Trillion dollars into subprime - which inflated the real estate market and made houses more expensive for all Americans

- Clinton deregulating derivatives?

- Clinton and his "regulation Q" antics

- Clinton signing the repeal of Glass Steagall - which should have been vetoed?


When will the democrats take RESPONSIBLITY for what their party did - in the horrible recession ???


When we hear HONESTY from you, then it might make sense to listen to you - otherwise, you are full of lies.

It really doesn't make sense to call you out on all your lies - they are too numerous.

.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

shrink2 - your comment at 1:41 PM is ridiculous and without merit


You are a complete fool

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

You know you're in trouble when Frank Rich comes out more forcefully and logically than most Dems, including Obama, against extending the tax cuts for the wealthy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"As “Winner-Take-All Politics” documents, America has been busy “building a bridge to the 19th century” — that is, to a new Gilded Age. To dislodge the country from this stagnant rut will require all kinds of effort from Americans in and out of politics. That includes some patriotic selflessness from those at the very top who still might emulate Warren Buffett and the few others in the Forbes 400 who dare say publicly that it’s not in America’s best interests to stack the tax and regulatory decks in their favor.

Many of the countless tasks that need to be addressed to start rebuilding an equitable America are formidable, but surely few, if any, are easier than eliminating a tax break that was destined to expire anyway and that most Americans want to see expire. Two years ago, Obama campaigned on this issue far more strenuously than he did on, say, reforming health care. Now he and what remains of his Congressional caucus are poised to retreat from even this clear-cut battle. You know things are grim when you start wishing that the president might summon his inner Linda McMahon. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/opinion/14rich.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

Posted by: lmsinca | November 14, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

clawrence at 1:43

I almost hate to constantly point out the mistakes of Obama and the democrats

It might actually encourage them to clean up their act

I would prefer that they continue down the same path for the next two years.


The incredible stupidity is probably at such a level that they will never learn.

I just can not believe how narrow-minded Obama's conduct has been. He has set himself up for failure. This from a guy who is supposed to be so smart. I don't see it. That is one reason why so many people would like to see his grades - something else he is hiding.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

srw3, I don't expect brilliance from you, but some basic honesty about what happened over the last two years is a prerequisite to having an opinion about what happened. You are entitled to your opinions about what happened, but not your own facts.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 14, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a complete failure.


You know we heard that line from the democrats for so long about Bush - they even google-bombed it.

However, the democrats never really told us what policies they were referring to as a failure.


It was a war. It was a wartime economy. What did the democrats want?


The lack of support for our military effort bordered on treason by the democrats. First, the democrats voted for the war, then they made it an issue - solely for domestic political gain.

Obama is now the complete failure.


And we hear the same ridiculous kind of sloganeering from the democrats with little substance - or actual message behind their talk.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

clawrence

It is impossible to take srw3 seriously when he talks like that


The economic downturn was a DIRECT RESULT of what Clinton did.


Bush had a wartime economy.


Sure, srw would like to compare Clinton's bubble economy with the wartime economy, but adults know better.


Will srw take responsibility for the bursting of the internet bubble?


srw has said nothing today that has any grounding in reality - or facts

And yet, srw comes off with these snide and rude comments


Typical of someone who knows they are wrong.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

ALL,

It is about time the democrats drop all this crap - the REAL PROBLEM is Clinton's trade deals.

At this point I really do not care if people like srw take responsibility for this or not.


_____________________________


The truth is that the Free Trade deals have caused the loss of 5% of our employment in this country -

Do we want that situation to continue, or are we going to take the steps necessary to modify the Free Trade deals???


One important factor: when the Free Trade deals were designed, few believed that there would be a loss of 5% of employment -

AND few thought that the loss of that 5% would create such a large budget deficit.


The loss of that tax revenue is the REAL problem here.


Those taxes are now in places like China, South Korea and Indonesia - funding their investments in education, roads and infrastructure.

(Im not sure if many Americans were offended by the South Korea's trade posture this week, but it certainly deserves close examination.)


__________________________


All this talk of tax rates, blaming Bush and all the other lies of the democrats - all is pretty meaningless if Clinton's Free Trade deals are not modified -

And that will bring back the tax revenues


YES - it is Clinton's fault.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"And if you don't find it stunning, I'd say you're stunned."

The only thing I find stunning is your ability to be "stunned" by the most banal things.

"Likely, before I've had my breakfast and showered, some knuckle dragging mouth-breather..."

"Knuckle-dragging mouth-breather"? Who would have thought that nose-breathing was an indication of one's education.

..."the classic anti-Semitic jeremiad Beck and Murdoch just spewed out into the culture..."

Are you actually referring to something real here, or is this simply another of your wholly baseless accusations against a member of your dreaded Jedi mind-trick club?

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 14, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

The truth is Obama still doesn't have an Economic Plan.

Obama's economic team left town, probably because Obama wasn't listening to them - at least one went back to Harvard, finding Obama to be hopeless.


________________________


Begging the South Koreans to buy more beef is not an Economic Plan


Sorry


But is that all Obama's got ?

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Independent Voters


It seems to that all the democrats are looking to do is find another way to fool the Independents again - and just return to pushing their liberal agenda


It is so tiresome - the American People do not want that. The Independents are REPULSED by this strategy.


There is a fundamental dishonesty here which the liberals have engaged in -

What gets people angry is the liberals act guilty when caught - they don't admit that they have been lying all along.


______________________


Instead of coming up with an Economic Policy

Instead of actually doing what Obama promised in 2008


The democrats appear to simply looking for another set of lies to push - just so they can get back to pushing a liberal agenda which no one wants.


That is a failure.


The democrats are a failure - No one wants this pile crap


Do me a favor - re-nominate Obama - and then when he losing, keep saying the same things.

Then re-nominate Obama again in 2016 with the same pile of horrible slogans and lack of Economic policies


Keep on re-nominating him - only next time make Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid the Vice Presidential candiate.


Not exactly sure where the democrats think they are going with any of this

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Bernie

You said you were leaving for good

Instead, you come on with the knuckle-dragging comment.

Is that your version of hit-and-run?


OR are you trying to say that you don't understand what it means to "leave" - and yet you call others "knuckly-draggers"

.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

@SaveorangeRainforcesForestestestsszz

"OR are you trying to say that you don't understand what it means to "leave"..."

hahahahahoooohehehehehahahahahahahwooooohunchuncccchhhhhahahahahahahahah,orkkkoughhh...gag...whew!

Oh, my!

Posted by: tao9 | November 14, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

tao, I thought I was gonna have to perform the Heineken Maneuver on you.

What you reading these days?

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 14, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Reports are now that Obama has given out 111 waivers to companies and unions to comply with the new health care law.


WHAT A JOKE


If Bush did that, there would be charges up and down of POLITICALLY CONNECTED GROUPS GETTING WAIVERS.


Obama is now playing favoritism with his own law.


If Obama's health care law is so good, ALL THE DEMOCRATIC UNIONS AND GROUPS SHOULD COMPLY.

Now, we have Obama's health care law, taxing the Republicans, giving benefits to the democrats - AND if a democratically-connected company or union doesn't want to complay, Obama WAIVES THEM.


This is a complete joke.


Par for the course - complete hypocrisy from Obama.


If Obama's health care law is so good, 111 unions and companies should not be looking for waivers

AND Obama should not be giving the waivers out.

.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Here is a list of the Obama waivers from complying with his new health care law

If the health care law is so good, Obama should not have handed out so many waivers already

1 Protocol Marketing Group
2 Sasnak
3 Star Tek
4 Adventist Care Centers
5 B.E.S.T of NY
6 Boskovich Farms, Inc
7 Gallegos Corp
8 Jeffords Steel and Engineering
9 O.K. Industries
10 Service Employees Benefit Fund
11 Sun Pacific Farming Coop
12 UFCW Allied Trade Health & Welfare Trust
13 HCR Manor Care
14 IBEW No.915
15 Integra BMS for Culp, Inc.
16 New England Health Care
17 Aegis Insurance
18 Alliance One Tobacco
19 Asbestos Workers Local 53 Welfare Fund
20 Assurant Health (2nd Application)
21 Captain Elliot's Party Boats
22 Carlson Restaurants
23 CH Guenther & Son
24 CKM Industries dba Miller Environmental
25 CWVEBA
26 Darden Restaurants
27 Duarte Nursery
28 Employees Security Fund
29 Florida Trowel Trades
30 Ingles Markets
31 Meijer
32 O'Reilly Auto Parts
33 Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 123 Welfare Fund
34 Sun Belt
35 UFCW Local 227
36 Uncle Julio's
37 United Group
38 US Imaging
39 Vino Farms
40 Advanta
41 Agricare
42 Alaska Seafood
43 American Fidelity
44 Convergys
45 Darensberries
46 Gowan Company
47 Greystar
48 Macayo Restaurants
49 Periodical Services
50 UniFirst
51 Universal Forest Products
52 UFCW Maximus Local 455
53 AHS
54 GuideStone Financial Resources
55 Local 25 SEIU
56 MAUSER Corp.
57 Preferred Care, Inc.
58 Ruby Tuesday
59 The Dixie Group, Inc.
60 UFCW Local 1262
61 Whelan Security Company
62 AMF Bowling Worldwide
63 Assisted Living Concepts
64 Case & Associates
65 GPM Investments
66 Grace Living Centers
67 Mountaire
68 Swift Spinning
69 Belmont Village
70 Caliber Services
71 Cracker Barrel
72 DISH Network
73 Groendyke Transport, Inc
74 Pocono Medical Center
75 Regis Corporation
76 The Pictsweet Co.
77 Diversified Interiors
78 Local 802 Musicians Health Fund
79 Medical Card System
80 The Buccaneer
81 CIGNA
82 Greater Metropolitan Hotel
83 Local 17 Hospitality Benefit Fund
84 GS-ILA
85 Allied
86 Harden Healthcare
87 Health and Welfare Benefit System
88 Health Connector
89 I.U.P.A.T
90 Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.
91 Transport Workers
92 UFT Welfare Fund
93 Aegis
94 Aetna
95 Allflex
96 Baptist Retirement
97 BCS Insurance
98 Cryogenic
99 Fowler Packing Co.
100 Guy C. Lee Mfg.
101 HealthPort
102 Jack in the Box
103 Maritime Association
104 Maverick County
105 Metro Paving Fund
106 PMPS-ILA
107 PS-ILA
108 QK/DRD (Denny's)
109 Reliance Standard
110 Tri-Pak
111 UABT

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

This is basically Obama's version of liberalism:


Obama's health care law, taxing the Republicans, giving benefits to the democrats -

AND if a democratically-connected company or union doesn't want to complay, Obama WAIVES THEM.


Is that AMERICAN? It's more like a petty third-world dictator.


Yes, it is UNAMERICAN.


Someone the other day asked what was so UNAMERICAN ABOUT OBAMA'S POLICIES


This is it.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Barack H. Obama should announce that he will not seek a second term. That will give him the freedom to join with Republicans in a cooperative effort to undo the humongous mess that has been created in the past two years.

For the good of America, he must stand down in 2012. I predicted he would do that some time ago and now two big-time political operatives are saying the same.

Douglas Schoen and Patrick Caddell are calling on Obama to foreswear his second term and work on rebuilding America for the next two years.

It's a tremendous idea.

Obama can retire to the most elite club in the world, the ex-presidents club, at a relatively young age and enjoy all the perks and glory thereof.

A sweet deal for him.

Posted by: battleground51 | November 14, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

The MyHaironFire troll should fire up another bump. Meth is your only friend. 26 posts removed on a Sunday, double down, loser, lite up that counter, one right after the other. Do it.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 14, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Any suggestion that the problems this country currently faces are the result of the policies of the past 2 years is absurd and just another example of the unseriousness of the right.

From Benen -

Governing hasn't exactly been easy for the Obama administration over the last two years. The White House benefited from a like-minded U.S. House, but Senate obstructionism reached a point unseen in American history. That, combined with pressing, inherited crises -- an economic catastrophe, two wars, a jobs crisis, a massive deficit, a housing crisis, a climate crisis, a dysfunctional health care system, a broken energy framework -- and an angry, impatient electorate, made 2009 and 2010 as challenging for this president as any two-year stretch in modern American history.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_11/026631.php

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 14, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

battleground51, he won't do that voluntarily.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 14, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Shrink

Your posting at 7:49 qualifies as "intent to harass"

You should be banned.


Most of the problems on this blog would have been solved long ago if such harassment caused banning of people like you.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

My suggestion is that most of the problems this country currently faces are the result of the policies of the past 6 years.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 14, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

OrangeForces, you know that liberals don't get banned by Greg.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 14, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

I still can't believe everyone's talking about letting the Bush tax cuts expire or not, trying to get Obama to resign (please get serious), cuts to Social Security, blah blah blah. Dean Baker knows what's important and instinctively the rest of us do to.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"That is the only thing that readers can conclude from its heroic efforts to balance the budget in 2030. This exercise is utterly mind-boggling. We have more than 25 million people unemployed, underemployed, or who have given up work altogether. This is a real crisis. Furthermore, it is worth noting that these people are largely suffering as a result of the incompetence of the budget balancers. (The budget balancers were the same people who dominated economic debate in the years before the crash and could did not see the $8 trillion housing bubble that wrecked the economy and gave us the huge deficits that now have them so obsessed.)

Obviously it is politically popular in Washington to be obsessed by the deficit, but we are supposed to have an independent press in this country. It is utterly loony to be focused on the projected deficit in 2030, when we have tens of millions of people who are seeing their lives ruined today by the downturn. This is like debating the colors to paint the classrooms when the school is on fire with the students still inside. Given economic reality, it would make far more sense to use the effort devoted to construct an elaborate game like this to designing a route toward restoring full employment.

It would also be worth pointing out to readers and participants in the NYT game that the long-term deficit is 100 percent a health care story. If the United States paid the same amount per person for health care as any of the 35 countries with longer life expectancies, we would be looking at huge budget surpluses for the indefinite future. Pointing out this simple fact would at least get people to focus on the real long-term problem facing the country: a broken health care system."

Posted by: lmsinca | November 14, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Did anyone else watch Sarah Palin on TLC?

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 14, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Prag, Benen for the clear win.

I still can't figure out why Republicans are so into paying huge interest payments on the debt. They are too lazy and irresponsible to balance the budget. They knock the "lazy" unemployed all the time, but they are so intellectually lazy that they would rather pay interest on the debt than actually govern.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 14, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Prag, Benen for the clear win.

I still can't figure out why Republicans are so into paying huge interest payments on the debt. They are too lazy and irresponsible to balance the budget. They knock the "lazy" unemployed all the time, but they are so intellectually lazy that they would rather pay interest on the debt than actually govern.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 14, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

This may be difficult for some of us to read but I think it's a start. I'm not the type to bury my head in the sand. Now more than ever we need to push back, everything depends on it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"It does not help Obama to keep telling him he did great but the people misunderstood him. He did lousy, not great, and in many governing dimensions people understood his failures clearly enough. They knew he gave tons of money to bankers and demanded nothing in return. They knew he thought the economy was in recovery. They couldn't believe this intelligent man was that clueless.

Popular forces can blow away the fuzziness. They can mobilize to demonstrate visible support for the president's loftier goals and to warn him off the temptation to pursue a Clintonesque appeasement of the right. Given the fragile status of his presidency, Obama needs to know that caving in is sure to encourage enemies and drive off disheartened supporters. People should, likewise, call out the president's enemies and attack them with the harshness that's out of character for him. The racial McCarthyism of the GOP establishment is a good place to start.

People who still have great hope for Obama can help revive his presidency, but only if they toughen up themselves. Stop holding his hand (he's an adult) and start building a people's agenda that compels the president to change his. Obama won't like this at first—his own supporters talking back—but he can learn to draw strength from their courage. If people fail to step up with their own message, the president will likely fail with his."

http://www.thenation.com/article/156384/obama-without-tears

Posted by: lmsinca | November 14, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

pragmaticagain, since 2005 (six years ago), evil gas companies haven't been bound by the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, or National Environmental Policy Act. DEMOCRATS have controlled Congress for that entire time.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 14, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse

"Did anyone else watch Sarah Palin on TLC?"

How long did you last with your pants on?

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 14, 2010 8:29 PM | Report abuse

lmsinca, are you just posting stories and links without responding to points therein? Did you ever post on "The Fix" as drindl?

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 14, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Krugman this morning on the deficit commission. Health care, health care, health care.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AMANPOUR: The deficit commission, we had two members just -- just -- just earlier. You've written very, very strongly about a lot of the proposals, among other things, saying this proposal clearly represents a major transfer of income upward from the middle class to a small minority of wealthy Americans.

KRUGMAN: Yes. I think the most important thing to understand is that the commission did not do its job. It has a bunch of ideas for reducing the deficit, some good, some really bad, some of them not ideas about reducing the deficit at all.

But, you know, anybody, it's easy to come up with ideas. I can come up with ideas for reducing the deficit while padding my tummy and rubbing my head, you know?

AMANPOUR: What should they have done?

KRUGMAN: What they -- what they were supposed to do was produce something that was good enough to have an up-and-down vote, something that a lot of people could sign on to, and they did not do that.

In particular, now, leaving aside the distributional stuff -- which is awful -- the core of the deficit problem, everybody who's serious knows the core is health care costs, and you have to reduce health care costs, not reduce them, but reduce the rate of growth. The way you have to do that is by deciding what you're going to be willing to pay for.

They completely wimped out on that. They simply assumed they were going to reduce the rate of health care cost growth. And they said, how are we going to do that? By monitoring and taking additional measures as necessary.

So the report was completely empty on the only thing that really matters and then had a whole bunch of things which involved large tax cuts for the top bracket. What on Earth is that doing in there?

Posted by: lmsinca | November 14, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

since 2005 (six years ago), evil gas companies haven't been bound by the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, or National Environmental Policy Act. DEMOCRATS have controlled Congress for that entire time.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 14, 2010 8:27 PM

Huh?

I know how you righties like you some word salads and I generally avoid acknowledging nonsense but please claw translate that into some sort of logical, coherent statement.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 14, 2010 8:38 PM | Report abuse

clawrence

I've been gone all weekend and came back to read some interesting pieces that AFAIK no one linked to. And I've never posted on the Fix. I have one other progressive site where I post under the same name as here.

I give my opinion when I feel like giving my opinion and will do so again I'm sure.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 14, 2010 8:39 PM | Report abuse

shrink2 at 7:49 PM

Do you actually have a license to practice?


Somehow I find your comment to be extremely unprofessional - and if you do currently have a license you should consider turning it in.

You clearly are so unbalanced that you should not be seeing any patients.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

BGinCHI at 8:29 PM


It doesnt start until 9 - why don't you turn it on

You might learn something

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

BGinCHI at 8:29 PM


It doesnt start until 9 - why don't you turn it on

You might learn something


______________________________________

Battleground

Interesting that the "adults" in the democratic party are trying to save the party - for the sake of the things they think the party used to stand for decades ago.


What Schoen and Caddell don't realize is the democratic party which they grew up in is gone forever. The liberals have taken over - and the wackiness has dominated ever since.

Amazing that Schoen and Caddell are actually trying to REASON with Obama and the liberals - and say "this would be best for the country and the democratic party as a whole."


HA expect that to be put on IGNORE, just like the bloggers here.


(Obama will try to ignore it, but he certainly won't be able to stop himself from reading it.)

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Schoen and Caddell

It is clear the Obama is treating the Presidency as more of a kami-kaze mission than anything else.


I find it OFFENSIVE that Obama would approach the running of the nation in this way.

It seems that Obama doesn't care about what the American People want, and Obama doesn't care about the Economy.

Obama only cares about his liberal agenda, and he will get quite spiteful when he doesn't get what he wants.


We are in for a new dynamic with this irrational psycho Obama now -


I can just see it now - the "You won't have Obama to kick around anymore" speech. It's coming.


.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 9:16 PM | Report abuse

pragmaticagain, you posted the following:

"Any suggestion that the problems this country currently faces are the result of the policies of the past 2 years is absurd and just another example of the unseriousness of the right."

I pointed out that the DEMOCRATS have been in charge of Congress for 6 years, not 2.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 14, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Schoen and Caddell

Their point is that if Obama agreed not to run in 2012, he would actually have more leverage.

The idea is the only from that position would Obama be able to effectively compromise with the Republicans - and deal properly with the Economic Crisis.


The issue is exactly this: what is more important governing the nation properly or this bogus liberal agenda which Obama seems to believe so forcefully.


Schoen and Caddell are under the mistaken impression that if someone wanted to be President, that person would have the nation's best interests at heart - and do what it takes.


Clearly, Obama does not rise to such a level - he is too blinded by his liberal arrogance.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

BGinCHI at 8:29 PM

I haven't seen it yet. It starts at 9:00 PM.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 14, 2010 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Obviously, the democratic spin machine is looking for some reason to call Schoen and Caddell a pair of racists.


.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is climbing a glacier right now.


And Obama is still afraid of the cold.


.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Schoen and Caddell are expressing what I believe a majority of Americans have felt over the past year: Obama has to get out what he is doing and try a different approach.

This whole health care thing has been such a disaster for Obama and for the economy -
Obama refused to listen to anyone after Scott Brown won in Massachusetts - that has proven to be Obama's undoing -


Let's all face it Obama handed it all to the Republicans.


Even if a majority of democrats don't want to admit it, they really want Obama just to quit - and allow someone else to govern this nation properly.


This on-the-job-training has gotten ridiculous.


This is no place for an affirmative action guy to try to learn. Seriously folks, the economy is just too important.


.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Schoen and Caddell are simply telling the democrats that Obama is likely to drag the party down again in 2012 - and the democrats are far better off with another candidate.


Whether Howard Dean is that person who knows.


Who knows - Biden, Hillary. Nancy Pelosi? Harry Reid ??? The list is endless.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Schoen and Caddell are simply telling the democrats that Obama is likely to drag the party down again in 2012 - and the democrats are far better off with another candidate.


Whether Howard Dean is that person who knows.


Who knows - Biden, Hillary. Nancy Pelosi? Harry Reid ??? The list is endless.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 10:10 PM | Report abuse

"I pointed out that the DEMOCRATS have been in charge of Congress for 6 years, not 2."

If you're going to make things up, why not just say 20 years or something?

Posted by: DDAWD | November 14, 2010 10:40 PM | Report abuse

@clawrence: "Did anyone else watch Sarah Palin on TLC?"

She rocks. Not a bad idea for a show, either. Beats John Hates Kate Plus Eight, IMHO.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 14, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

@shrink:

This could be a fun game.

In terms of the damage done to the United States of America and The World in general...

I rate them this way.

Crimes against humanity: Miley Cyrus
Pernicious: Lyndsey Lohan (runner up: Carrot Top)
Disappointing: Bush/Cheney, Clinton, Obama, etc.

Now, someone else should try.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 14, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Crimes against humility: Obama


Pernicious: Health care premium increases

Disappointing: Liberals refusing to admit how horrible Obama is.


.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 11:13 PM | Report abuse

Yes, I did say HUMILITY

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 14, 2010 11:15 PM | Report abuse

Clearly, Barack H. Obama is a political fluke. He is in way over his head. He is a natural, one term wonder. There can no longer be any doubt of that. Jimmy Carter will have some company in that club in about two years.

Obama should stand down for the sake of America, as a whole. It would save him from the embarrassment of defeat in 2012 and he would look selfless and noble in retreat.

He has said that he would rather be a good one-termer than a bad two-termer.

It would also be best being a bad one-termer than suffering America two, bad terms, even if hades freezes over and he was able to win another one.

Posted by: battleground51 | November 15, 2010 7:25 AM | Report abuse

OrangeForces..........

.....we both know that the Democrat party has been held hostage by the leftist dregs of American society since the 1960s.

That's when the Democrat party started to go downhill and pushed the Republican party up, up, and up.

The two parties are reversed today and Obama is a fluke.

Schoen & Caddell are trying to save their party from total oblivion.

Posted by: battleground51 | November 15, 2010 7:44 AM | Report abuse

There is no course back for Barack H. Obama. Republicans took 675, state, legislative seats. This is much bigger than 1994 and Obama is not nearly as crafty and flexible as Bill Clinton.

Obama has embarked on a dead-end road full of muddy potholes.

See this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/13/AR2010111302389.html

Posted by: battleground51 | November 15, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

Battleground

Isn't it obvious that Schoen and Caddell have hidden motives and those are that both of them are complete in total racists?


There can be no other explanation.

Absolutely, there is no way that any reasoning they might have shold not be considered - at all.

The Great Obama is just the smartest person to ever hold elective office in the history of the world. Obama knows what is best for this nation.

The voters are the ones who simply do not understand. The voters are the ones who do not know what is good for them. The voters should not be allowed to vote anymore because they make bad decisions.


Don't you see, it's not Obama.


Everyone else is the one who is not doing their job properly.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 15, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/the_morning_plum_131.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 15, 2010 8:39 AM | Report abuse

Wasn't there a recent Republican one-term president? What was his name again? Oh right, Bush. George HW Bush. And his son, the worst President in modern U.S. History, hands down. I don't get the right's Carter fixation and understand even less the comparisons of Carter to President Obama. It's just more of the same tactic of making things up that we've seen time and time again. Reality to the GOP means the worst lie they can think of to use for their own base political reasons.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 15, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Wasn't there a recent Republican one-term president? What was his name again? Oh right, Bush. George HW Bush. And his son, the worst President in modern U.S. History, hands down. I don't get the right's Carter fixation and understand even less the comparisons of Carter to President Obama. It's just more of the same tactic of making things up that we've seen time and time again. Reality to the GOP means the worst lie they can think of to use for their own base political reasons.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 15, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

@Ethan2010: "Wasn't there a recent Republican one-term president?"

Yup, and H.W. Bush faced a 3rd party challenger in the election, one who directed most of his attacks against Bush, and H.W. went from having one of the highest approval ratings of any president in the last 50 years to losing the election.

Carter was primaried by Ted Kennedy, which weakened him. And then there was a weak 3rd party challenger, ostensibly to the right of Reagan (John Anderson), but still, the 3rd party challenger has to spend a lot of time and energy attacking the incumbent.

Folks on the right see the Carter/Obama comparison having a little more to do with Obama's perceived approach on certain issue (what one pundit characterized as American Unexceptionalism). With his worried over 10% unemployment becoming the new normal, he did come across a little like Jimmy Carter in his sweater-wearing malaise mode.

One thing I can say about Carter, though--he did not treat the presidency as a ticket for luxurious appointments and high living. He insisted on being a citizen president, and attempted to live much of the frugality he preached (sometimes to the chagrin of the Secret Service).

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 15, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

"they will begin to gauge whether they can forge an alliance with any top Republicans"

No. The Republicans will not forge an alliance on anything, including defending the USA. They are in a civil war with Democrats and liberals and will not settle for less than complete defeat of their enemies.

There is no transcending to be done.

Posted by: ANDYO1 | November 15, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

This quote provided by Greg in a nearby post, really speaks to the foolishness of trying to build alliances with modern Republicans:

"Every time we moved toward them, they would move away."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/11/the_political_history_of_healt.html

And, definitely see Krugman today on this issue!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/opinion/15krugman.html

"But none of this will matter unless the president can find it within himself to use his power, to actually take a stand. And the signs aren’t good. "

The best possible sign we could see would be the White House hiring a take-no-prisoners operative. They did hire Rahm but he was as interested in beating down the left and watering down policy, as opposing the right.


Posted by: ANDYO1 | November 15, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

How many tax haters know that by far the greatest tax on Americans --- far greater than income taxes, property taxes, or Social Security taxes --- is the over $10 Trillion "Negative Externality Tax" which the people, through their government merely passes through to the hidden ruling-elite corporate/financial/militarist EMPIRE each year. And what can't even be paid out of current government taxes on the people is forwarded as deficit and DEBT on the people and their children.

Exposure of the massive, and greatest hidden "Negative Externality Tax" scam which is being foisted on people and our country by this disguised EMPIRE is going to be the catalyst that both opens peoples' eyes to the real source of their horror, and ignites a focused explosion at the EMPIRE when the system and the people reach the critical mass and there is "no room for denial" of being "Against EMPIRE".

Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine

Posted by: alanmd | November 17, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company